The “Me No Speaka The English Distraction”

_{Barry Arrington

September 16, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my Not Merely False post I made the following statement.

It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts . . . on the basis of physical facts.

For anyone who has read Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, this phraseology should be familiar, because the idea for the post came from that book. Yes, I am basing an assertion on the writings of a materialist author (albeit one who is uncommonly honest about the shortcomings of materialism).

In response Graham2 wrote:

If you people insist on such vague, slippery terms such as a ‘mental fact’ then these discussions are pretty pointless. What on earth is a ‘mental fact’ ?

By “you people” I suppose Graham2 is referring to ID proponents, which is ironic indeed given the provenance of the phrase. Here Graham2 is employing a common materialist tactic. When they have no argument, they resort to what I call the “me no speaka the English distraction.” We have seen this so many times I am going to put a formulation of it in the Weak Argument Corrective section of the site. As we sometimes do here at UD, I am going to open this up for contributions by our readers. I will select the best formulation and post it in the WAC. Thanks in advance to the UD community for their assistance.

The formulation should take this form: The me no speaka the English distraction (“MNSTED”) is . . . . The MNSTED is an illegitimate response to an argument because . . .

I will leave you with a funny video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJX1REQB12o

Comments

'On the specific tactic of asking for a more precise definition. It can be abused – but which is the bigger problem: misunderstandings and errors arising from ambiguous/vague terms or procrastination through insisting on ever more rigorous definitions? Sometimes it is not so much a matter of “Me No Speaka The English” as “You No Writa The English”. The short, but full answer, Mark, is, indubitably, the one you would clearly disdain: '...insisting on ever clearer definitions.' It's absolutely no contest. And, no, it's not a matter of procrastination, as such, but the endless, very wearing evasions and sophistries - of which latter, not only was Elizabeth Liddle a master, but that other chap with a strange username akin to Darwinian Naturalist. Yours are more reactive, and ad hoc. Theirs was often pro-active, but always immensely discursive and really Nobel-laureate level. As a matter of act, someone on our side, perhaps gpuccio, admitted that he sometimes found he'd lapsed a little into one or other of the tricks, but you et al...? Never.Axel_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

I know it's tangential, but such 'chutzpa' is so 'off the dial', it is reminiscent of the knots atheists get themselves into, trying to argue from false, primordial assumptions without arriving at nonsense. I'm talking about Julia Pearson, the former head of the US Secret Service, who very graciously proffered that she would 'take full responsibility' for the five-ringed circus that was supposed to be five rings of security of the President and his family while they were in the White House. I was half expecting to read that one of her inquisitors had suggested to her that perhaps their own presence there questioning her was therefore redundant; they should all have stayed at home, rather than seek to ascertain what went wrong (or rather, did anythng at all go right?) and who was responsible. He could scarcely have anticipated what was to follow! Unfortunately, even that five-ringed circus was purely nominal, as the circus simply wasn't in town. A scene of total dereliction, the actual intruder only having been arrested by an off-duty security officer, who spotted upon him by chance in one of the corridors. The gem that had had me laughing all day thinking about it, was her wonderful response to the questioning concerning the extraordinary dereliction of duty of her security detail, from top to bottom, i.e. the surely immortal words: 'It's unacceptable.'(!!!!) Again, I would have expected one of her inquisitors to respond in a way something like: 'Oh, well, that confirms it. Is it possible that an error has been made and you should be on this side of the arraignment? Pleading as the accused and giving judgment as the Judge. We surely are redundant here. I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the Nuremburg Trials, now. Imagine those war criminals proffering: 'It's unacceptable.'(!!!)Axel_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

F/N2: On second reflection, the "You no speaka/writa de Ingles" . . . forgive me, Spanish speakers* . . . variant is little more than the turnabout projective accusation form of the same problem BA has headlined in the OP. KF PS: As, my son coming out of anesthesia responded in Spanish, I still remain with my prediction, I will have to deal with a Hispanic daughter in law. So, I make sure in advance.kairosfocus_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

F/N: MF at 81 confirms my point in no 78. he is duly directed to the corrective and clarifying links. He may also find this current post on the significance of FSCO/I illuminating, as the heavy lifting is done by visual images. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Also, HeKS #3 is a classic! 'It’s like pointing to someone across the street that they’re about to be hit by a bus but instead of moving they take it as an opportunity to make a rhetorical jab that three of your fingers are pointing back at you.' Typical liberal-atheist hackneyed pomposity! I absolutely abhor bla bla, but I will fight to the death to defend his right... bla bla.' All right, that's enough. Buzz off!Axel_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

humble, your #9: '“If you people insist on such vague, slippery terms…” The irony, the shame haha.' This has to be one of the funniest threads ever. And yours, brief and simple quote that it is, one of the funniest posts, for anyone who remembers Elizabeth.Axel_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

You can always be relied on to give the 'good oil', Mark. Riotously eristic to the last.Axel_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

I haven't been following these "Darwinist Debating Tactics" but I am willing to bet that they are used by everyone debating anything at any time on either side. I would also bet that everyone thinks it is "the other side" that is guilty and they are innocent. On the specific tactic of asking for a more precise definition. It can be abused - but which is the bigger problem: misunderstandings and errors arising from ambiguous/vague terms or procrastination through insisting on ever more rigorous definitions? Sometimes it is not so much a matter of "Me No Speaka The English" as "You No Writa The English".Mark Frank_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

KF @ 78. Indeed. Darwinist abuses of language are legion. Next on the list is the humpty dumpty "words mean exactly what I say they mean" gambit.Barry Arrington_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

And the award for most superior video goes to BA77 @66 with 'I'll bite your legs off' Another enlightening post thank you everyone.DillyGill_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

BA: Pardon, but one variant is YOU no speaka de English, projecting blame on the premise that the ID proponent cannot comprehend basic technical vocab. Such need to be pointed to the UD glossary, for starters, and of course the definition of ID here too. Likewise the WAC's in general. KF PS: Notice how the WACs are the no 2 post in the blog . . . word is slowly seeping out, and the DDD's are breaking down.kairosfocus_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart: "At least Groovamos understands the importance of defining the term that forms the foundation of his/her proclamation." I thought I had tried too, in #42...gpuccio_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

The legless and armless Black Knight yelling at King Arthur as he “rides” away at the end of the classic MP skit linked above:
You yellow bastards. Came back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off.
A_b has given us the combox equivalent today. But it really has grown tiresome.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 67
They are concentrating on the fact that I used the word ‘inherent’.
I am concentrating on the fact that you used the word "superior" as if you knew its definition, and when challenged to substantiate your assertion and its use of "superior", you evaded the challenge by inventing a dependency on how Mung defined "superior". The issue was and always has been your evasion of answering Mung's challenge, claiming the meaning of "superior" became dependent on how Mung defined it from how you used it, when all Mung did was exactly repeat your usage and ask you.
Yet they ignore everything else that I have said.
You, Acartia_bogart, are the one who keeps ignoring everything that has been said to you. I've repeated the above refutation several times and not once have you acknowledged it. You even finally admitted that you didn't see the point in reading my entire comment. That is you ignoring what has been said to you. But had you initially responded to Mung with "That depends on how you define 'inherently' superior", and still evaded answering his challenge, we'd still be concentrating on the fact that you used the words 'inherently' superior and still failed to acknowledge that they remain your words (with you presumably knowing your meaning in your context), and yet you feign inability to substantiate "Since humans are not inherently superior to other organisms". Your recent emphasis on the word "inherently" while ignoring your repeated failure to substantiate your assertion "Since humans are not inherently superior to other organisms" (the entire phrase, not just 'inherently'), is a red herring.
You [Barry Arrington] have accepted their statements at face value because they are creationists like you.
Or maybe he accepts our statements because, he: a) has the requisite reading comprehension b) distinguishes between the claims laid out against you vs your evasions, equivocations, red herrings, moving goal posts and "Definition Deficit Disorder" or "terminopathy" c) sees that on the face of it, you've neither made your case, nor been intellectually honest d) knows that our being creationists didn't cause you to write what you wrote e) concludes that you have no one to blame except yourself. Sincerely, if you want your views respected, while accuracy isn't always necessary and agreement isn't necessary, intellectual honesty is always necessary. Feigning not being able to answer what you meant without someone else supplying your definition for you will just earn more derision. Snarky comments can be overlooked when someone has a reputation of otherwise being honest. But after a while, even if you contribute something agreeable and informative, an intellectually dishonest reputation will taint any credibility that would otherwise be deserved on a subject you actually know (see Elizabeth Liddle).Charles_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

At least Groovamos understands the importance of defining the term that forms the foundation of his/her proclamation. But Groovy is talking about the superiority of a view point. Or maybe of a world view. Not an entire species. But, at least, he/she is willing to define what he/she means by superior. Not try to argue that asking for a definition is a sign of a weak argument.Acartia_bogart_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Mung: Another recent example: A_b: “Since humans are not inherently superior to other organisms there is little point to this subject.” M: “I suppose next you’ll assert that it is a scientific fact, as sure as the fact of evolution, that humans are not inherently superior to other organisms.” A_b: “That depends on how you define superior.” Materialists have a very ambitious program to define superior. It consists of establishing in the collective mind of the culture an elite group, termed "Brights" who are superior by definition. So it would seem that the rest of us dreary, run of the mill types, by defining humans as a family superior to other species, are much less ambitious and even downright, dare I say, ecumenical. The word broadly fitting as inclusive of Materialist Brights who are of their own shared religion.groovamos_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

thank youMung_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Comment #69: "A_b tosses packages of shit..." Classy.Acartia_bogart_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

HeKS:
@Mung #22 Not to get all preachy, but while I fully appreciate your ultimate point, should Acartia_bogart’s politeness really be met with derision? I think your point could be presented with equal power in a slightly more attractive package.
A_b tosses packages of shit and I toss them back. How they are packaged is determined by A_b, not me.Mung_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

lolMung_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Councillor: "A-B, you’ve been soundly thrashed by several observers. What is the point of continuing this farce? Just admit you screwed up and move on." Really? Have you bothered to look at the validity of the arguments and accusations of Mung and others? Obviously not. You have accepted their statements at face value because they are creationists like you. They are concentrating on the fact that I used the word 'inherent'. Yet they ignore everything else that I have said. But, the entire purpose of this OP, your OP, is to address the issue of evolutionists playing with the definition of words to obfuscate everything. But when it is your 'side' that is using this tactic, not only do you condone it, you jump on with both knuckle dragging appendages. So, how is this post progressing?Acartia_bogart_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

It's possible, isn't it, to disagree in good faith? Unless you reject faith. A_b:
Tim. OK, I will play it your way. Why can’t an atheist accept the job in good faith (ignoring the ‘faith’ concept)?
It depends on how you define faith, I bet. A_b:
However, a non-theist, who believes that ethical norms are, and should be, determined by society, which admittedly includes a religious component, could apply for this position in good ‘faith’ (using the secular use of the word, not the religious).
Mung_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Monty Python - I'll Bite Your Legs Off! - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0idLSOQZmRwbornagain77_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Tiresome, isn't it. -QQuerius_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

A-B, you've been soundly thrashed by several observers. What is the point of continuing this farce? Just admit you screwed up and move on.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 61 You now shamelessly move the goal posts from your dependency on how "superior" is defined [Mung's post #27]:
A_b: "Since humans are not inherently superior to other organisms there is little point to this subject." M: "I suppose next you’ll assert that it is a scientific fact, as sure as the fact of evolution, that humans are not inherently superior to other organisms." A_b: "That depends on how you define superior."
to the meaning of "inherent":
so I will admit that I stated that humans are not ‘inherently’ superior to other animals. ... And since Barry the barrister will not allow us to question definitions, I will rely on the one [definition] that appears when I hover my finger over the word ‘inherent’:
Apostrophes around inherent now duly noted, but no one ever accused you inventing a dependency on the meaning of "inherent", so your admission is really a red herring, isn't it.
I admit that I didn’t read your entire comment (what would be the point?)
Ummm, that you might not lose track of your original assertion, where you put the goal posts initially??Charles_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

MNSTED is little different than an illusionist waving his right hand so your attention is temporarily taken off the left. It is deliberate obfuscation attempting to disguise itself as intellect and should be dismissed as such.wyseguy_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Charles, because life is to short, I admit that I didn't read your entire comment (what would be the point?) so I will admit that I stated that humans are not 'inherently' superior to other animals. And I stand by this comment. I will rely on the one that appears when I hover my finger over the word 'inherent': "law vested in someone as a right of right or privilege". So, what law vests us with superiority as a right or privilege?Acartia_bogart_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 56
Charles, if you look at my comments here, and in the previous OP, I talked about different types of superiority.
LOL!!! Only after you first used "superiority" in an assertion, and after Mung challenged your assertion, you claimed dependencies and started obfsucating with different types of "superiority". You weren't so nuanced initially, were you. No, you dogmatically, without qualification stated "Since humans are not inherently superior to other organisms there is little point to this subject." You didn't qualify which type of "superiority" you meant then, did you. No.
And said that it is important to state what you mean when you say superior. The fact that you choose to ignore this is your problem, not mine.
No, it is important that you say what you meant when you said "superior". You made an assertion that depended on your definition of "superior" and when challenged to substantiate your assertion, you attempted to foist the dependency on to Mung. You were the one who used "superior" in your assertion that "humans are not inherently superior to other organisms" and Mung challenged you to substantiate your assertion, to which challenge you introduced an artifical dependency on the definition of "superior". The meaning of "superior" didn't have any dependencies that precluded your using the term initially. You only invented a dependency when your assertion was challenged. The meaning of "superior" didn't change, just your dependency on it. The challenge was to you and your use of "superior", no one elses. Mung didn't ask you for Mung's definition, rather Mung challenged you for your usage, a usage which you have already admitted "Was the word used in the title of the OP". So either you didn't understand the meaning of "superior" in the OP, or you didn't understand the meaning of "superior" when you used it yourself, but in neither case is it anyone elses problem but your own. You admonished everyone in your post 40 "If you can’t adequately define a term that is central to your argument, then maybe you should reevaluate your argument." Well, you were the one who argued "humans are not inherently superior to other organisms": your use of "superior" is central to your assertion, not mine, not Mung's, none but your own. The problem and your dependency on your use of "superior" in your assertion has always been yours, and it will remain so after your next post and ever thus.Charles_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

I've never seen a thread authored by another animal inviting comments on here. I wonder why.Axel_{September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply